Print

Print


Antony scrit:

>I’d agree that “simpler” isn’t really the word:
basilects can indeed be more complex, as I previously
suggested, but they don’t have the scope of acrolects
in terms of range of speech sounds and grammar. If you
think I’m wrong - I might be, of course - please
supply a convincing counter-example.

No counter-examples needed: if your position were
true, then we would have to recognize all
normal-language basilects as reduced languages, like
pidgins and creoles.  This was a view held by some
pre-war linguists ("the working classes in London
speak Cockney because they are less intelligent and
well-educated than the upper classes and they could
never master RP") but you won't find a single post-war
linguist who would support that view.  (I don't always
find myself on the side of the post-war linguists, who
I have sometimes labeled the "social-worker linguists"
due to their excessively PC attitudes to some
questions; but here I think they have it right.)

>Also, please demonstrate why there is an inherent
difference between the acrolect ~ mesolect - basilect
succession identified by Bickerton and the hierarchy
of sociolects within any major language.

Creoles as a class of languages are universally
recognized as reduced languages.  In a creole
continuum, the acrolect may be assumed to be the
lexifier.  There is no case of a creole which is not
reduced (in complexity, expansion) vis-a-vis its
lexifier.

>Please give examples of natlangs with a permanent
bona fide “pidginized” style. I’m always ready to
stand corrected.

Creoles.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com